said Nader. “Is $9 per hour the best that this President can come up with? They should be making at least $10.50 per hour to catch up with 1968.” That was the message Nader and other worker advocates took in demonstrations yesterday before the headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO (see here).

If the minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation in the past 45 years, today it would be $10.56 per hour instead of the current federal minimum wage of $7.25. In about the same time that the minimum wage has lost nearly 50 percent of its value, the average value of CEO compensation has skyrocketed over 900 percent according to an annual Forbes survey.

“On the campaign trail in 2008, President Obama pledged to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011. What changed?” asked Nader. “Are millions of the same hard-working Americans in 2015 worth 50 cents less per Obama-hour than they were in 2008?”

Despite his campaign pledge, in President Obama’s first term, not a whisper came from the White House on the minimum wage and 2011 came and went.

http://www.timeforaraise.org/

I have education, skills, and lots of hard work to get that money. I also need to make over twice minimum wage because I have two small children who my husband stays home with. Yes, I know that many people making minimum wage work hard and have children to support and that having a parent to stay home with the babies is a luxury. Still, it is a point of pride that I make over twice minimum wage, that college wasn't a waste of time and money, and that my skills mean something.

What makes one job pay more than others?
education but that should just get you a job that is more fun and of interest
work is work

An organization asks itself how much it would have to pay to get someone to do the job at the same level or better than the people currently doing the job. Some jobs require few prior skills and workers reach peak performance relatively rapidly. Other jobs might require specific skills that most people don't have and might take a long time to learn.
If all jobs paid the same, there are some jobs that might go unfilled because most people who might be qualified to do them might do something easier. For example, there is no requirement that people with nursing degrees become nurses and the professional drop out rate might be higher than it is now if they were paid the same as they would be working as a cashier.

if no one has the skill set that is looked for then they need to start a training program
still if everyone got paid the same people they would do it because they want to do the job not because of some ridiculous pay levels
every person has value in the production process

The loss of family income, especially in comparison to price increases over the last 3 decades, have done more to stifle the lifestyles of American families than any other factor ...

This diminishment of family wealth has continued to the point where most 'middle class' goals; Home ownership, college tuition for your children, retirement pensions, nice cars, clothes, vacations .... This stuff is pretty much out of reach of most families now ....

Unfortunately; With reduced demand for those goods and services; LESS economic activity has resulted in a stunted, stifled economy that seems to move forward glacially, and on the verge of sputtering out .... again ....

PAY workers for the value of their work, a decent wage, and the whole economy would lift across the board .... Yet the idiots on the right enforce their anti-worker philosophies to the point that it strangles economic activity by the middle class, who pay their bills before they buy college educations and nice cars and indulgent meals at the local brewpub ....

cost of living is somewhat higher, it would be $18 an hour. We have a bigger problem, one of using slave labor. Employers and local governments don't like to see it this way, but every time you put prisoners to work clearing brush, you are taking a job from another person. Every time you hire an immigrant for less than minimum wage, you are creating an underclass of slave labor. Every time you underpay an employee even though you are legally paying minimum wage, you are creating a slave underclass. Slaves are people who have to work for free whether it's forced labor or that part of the wages due to them aren't coming forth. I haven't even touched on the armies of salaried employees, who get no overtime for long days and weekends worked.

over.

i.e. people on probation or 'volunteering' in lieu of drug fines or drug court 'restitution'. It is a *lot* of labor, a lot. The other day I was at a local non-profit and gradually realized that 99% of the people working were 'slaves,' and that there was no way this particular non-profit could exist without them -- it requires heavy labor, and somewhat dangerous labor. You couldn't get that volume of people to do it for free.

I also wondered -- what happens if those people get injured as 'volunteers'? It's heavy labor, moving large things, tearing stuff apart, etc. I doubt most of them have insurance.

However, there are those people who don't have the luxury of "volunteering", because they have an outside income, who are still underpaid and can't make ends meet. That is a crime IMHO and nothing more than slavery, maybe an indentured rather than forced type of slavery, but slavery nontheless.

i'm not sure you understand what i'm talking about. there are hundreds of people doing court-mandated labor *outside* of jail or prison, just in my little town alone. most of it for petty drug offenses. most of them are working class kids (the middle to upper class kids somehow don't seem to wind up in this position).

not only that, some of these non-profits compete with small businesses -- and could *not* compete without the use of forced labor.

it seems to me that a non-profit that has to compete with a business, is just another business that has bent the rules to make money. What I call a non-profit that benefits from volunteer labor would be a homeless shelter. I don't know of any business that would like to run a homeless shelter unless they are getting money from the government like the privatized prison system is getting. Then that's just pure graft and corruption of our system. It's actually criminal.

during the reagan admin this money was ramped up in anticipation of the homelessness they *knew* would result from their housing policies.

should go to private and religious groups that do charity work. Half said they should. The other half, and I was one of them, was against it. I haven't changed my opinion. I thought private and religious charitable non-profits should raise money in the private sector. The tax payers should not have to give them a penny. They can then attach strings and manage their programs as they wish. The government on the other hand could administer social programs like free clinics, food kitchens and banks and programs to house people and if possible give them jobs so they can lift themselves up and out of poverty with tax payer money. They would be under restrictions and rules to make sure they include everyone and don't tie strings like reading bibles, or restriction women's access to reproductive help, that kind of thing.

But I know this is such a flammable topic.

& poverty, wouldn't need to pay people to administer ineffective 'social programs', wouldn't need to have every church doing social work (and making a little cut on the side).

everything has been corrupted by neoliberal policies.

a logical argument but using the term in a way, clouds the true meaning and horror of actual slavery.

Surely we can come up with other terminology to describe "that part of the wages due to them aren't coming forth" rather than referring to it with the term 'slavery'.

They took captives of war and made them into unpaid labor or for other uses. This is what we did to Africans, without the war. We just kidnapped them and forced them into unpaid labor or for other uses. But then there is indentured slavery where the worker willingly gives up their freedom for a period of time to work for nothing or next to nothing. We did a lot of this during the colonization of American. Prisoners in England could buy their freedom by agreeing to work for a master for a number of years with no recompense other than subsistence until they completed the contract. It was still slavery, although voluntary, and that is what we are dealing with today.

There are those who exploit the nationals of other countries, bringing them to this country or maybe another, to work off a "debt" for practically no pay. We have exploited Mexicans and other minorities for centuries in our agriculture, yet I have yet to meet a poor farmer or rancher. What you don't notice that much, unless you look, are the brown people who look after the horses and livestock and who labor in the fields for far less than minimum wage. These people have a choice of stealing, starving or working for bare subsistence.

Then there are the prisoners. That is forced labor and as far as I'm concerned in many places living in conditions that are close to concentration camp conditions. This is what the Nazis exploited as free labor. We all saw "Schindler's List" didn't we? Also, white collar has it's slaves. It's the people who don't get paid overtime and are doing the work of two workers for the price of one and don't get me started on this intern crap that has become institutionalized in the past twenty years.

To sum it up. To me a slave is someone who is forced to work for less than what their labor should be recompensed for and that would be a living wage on the bottom and various pay scales commensurate with education, skills and experience. Sure they may be able to move around jobs theoretically, but we both know it's not possible in an economy that breeds the unequal labor conditions we are dealing with today to begin with.

employees leads to a cheapening of the word. Should we not have different words for people who are underpaid compared to the true worth of their labor and those who are paid nothing and kept in chains?

exploiting free labor. It's still unpaid labor. It exploits an underclass, which can't be really free when they are under this yoke of despair and poverty. Most slaves were not kept in chains incidentally. How could they get any work done? It's slavery any way you look at it. If you make it look nicer you cheapen the true value of a day's labor.

I believe that misusing the word 'slave' to achieve this goal leads to debasing the true meaning of the what slavery actually was throughout history. Maybe it comes down to a question of the end versus the means.

I will understand what you mean by 'slave labor' (that underpaid labor is unpaid labor to an extent) even if I will not use the term myself except in its traditional usage. Thanks for the explanation.

Islands, it is referred to as slave labor. But underpaying employees and making them work long hours with practically no days off for very low wages is what we are doing here. It's no different. It's reluctance on the part of Americans to see that what we are doing is the same as what is labeled slave labor over seas. But I guess you and I will be in disagreement on that.

Why are there 46 million people on food stamps now?

Its not because people aren't working as much as it is that there are so many people working full time who can't afford food and a roof. Once, minimum wage was a decent (though minimal) living. Now its starve or live on the street, or rely on government assistance.

Working people should be able to afford a roof and a meal - raise the minimum wage!

with his job's bill, but the Republicans holding our government hostage won't pass it.

(people working less than they want/outside their field) is even higher.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment%20rate

not to mention the stats on labor force participation rate, which show a big decline, and not just among oldsters who may be retiring -- among young people in particular.

depending on the source. Which is a pretty big number, but lots (if not most) of the unemployed are living in a household where others are employed.

Of course unemployment is a big factor, but the whole structure of the economy, based on a below-living wage minimum wage, means that even a full-time wage earner is still unable to support him or her self without government assistance. Even in a household where some working-age adults have jobs, struggling to eat and pay the bills can be the norm.

More jobs would help a lot, but if people who were working already were also able to afford to live, and perhaps to help support their household, that would be the biggest difference.